|
On November 30 2010 07:48 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 06:12 Mora wrote:On November 29 2010 15:22 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 15:15 Tarbosh wrote:
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me. I guess I am alone where in my community uncircumcised penises are somewhat looked down upon. Not in a serious way or anything, more in the manner that the occasional joke will be made about someone being uncircumcised. I've never seen anyone defend their uncircumcised self or be proud of it, until reading this. naw ur not alone in that On November 29 2010 15:17 Mora wrote:
Circumcised penises are more fantastic than uncut ones.
/contribution gross dude .... but now im curious. why? After a shower, they are for the most part the same (though a flacid cut penis is more pleasing to the eye than an ant eater). However, assuming that you're not going to have a shower right before oral sex everytime you want to engage with said activity... well, you can do an experiment: Go for a 30 minute walk (or an hour, for better results) with 1 hand palm open, and the other hand in a fist. Lick both palms at the end of your excursion. Voila. so let me get this. if you engage in the said activity: 2 cases, 2 penises, 1 cut, one uncut, both clean, it means that the uncircumcised penis is definitely washed while the circumcis one could have gone unwashed for days? i think the joke is on you.
No. Everyone showers at least once daily. Regardless, a 2 day old unwashed cut cock tastes better than a 6 hour unwashed uncut cock. I've done the taste test; if you haven't, stop arguing.
and, i know its not your area of expertise, but the sweating issue (even thow is not sweat) is more abundant in women and no one is cutting them. [/QUOTE]
What?
1) Women are disgusting
2) This topic is not about 'getting even' with women because they smell/taste as bad as uncut men
3) I did not show support for or against the ban. All i said was that circumcised penises are more fantastic than uncut ones.
|
On November 30 2010 09:34 tbrown47 wrote:
Does this mean my penis is a freak : [
sorry penis : [
it's a matter of perspective.
If you're uncut, your penis is not a freak, it just looks like it.
If you're cut then your penis is a great pretender, as it is a freak buts fools people otherwise.
What's better? hard to say.
I like it freaky.
|
Just gotta put this out there, any doctor who accidentally cuts off a child's penis during a circumcision is a pretty shitty doctor.
|
Having a circumcised penis here is extremely rare, in fact, not very many people are even aware how widespread it is in the states. Foreskin is "normal" here.
|
On November 30 2010 09:31 LazyMacro wrote:
Personally, I'd rather have a sensitive glans and learn to use a washcloth and practice safe sex than walk around missing a functional body part because a girl doesn't want to slide it back.
And you're entitled to your preference. But how would you feel if the government mandated that all male infants be circumcised? Now you understand the position of those who prefer to have been circumcised as an infant.
Here is another way to look at this: under the current regime of letting the parents decide, there will of course be those who are circumcised who would prefer not to have been, and those who aren't who would prefer to have been. But how many of those people are there? Not so many that the government should decide what the "correct" preference should be. It seems that men in general are happy with their penises (or at least, happy with whether it is cut or not). It is far more likely that a government mandate that no one be circumcised will create more unhappiness.
|
On November 30 2010 09:31 LazyMacro wrote:
From the point of view of a guy who didn't have their body maliciously modified to meet religious or other unjustified standards (read: sarcasm, I'm not really that biased):
1. "It's cleaner." Buy soap. Buy a washcloth. Take a shower. It's really not that hard.
2. "It's safer." Really? I haven't seen much legitimate evidence (read: repeated studies published in peer reviewed academic journals) that would suggest circumcision is genuinely safer from a medical standpoint.
3. "Women prefer a the look of a circumcised penis." Good for them. How is that my problem?
Personally, I'd rather have a sensitive glans and learn to use a washcloth and practice safe sex than walk around missing a functional body part because a girl doesn't want to slide it back.
I am an ant eater and I'm going to completely ignore the fact that the discussion here should be about whether or not government should be intervening in matters such as this and advocate how content I am with my penis. Nobody cares that you're happy with your penis, many of us are as well. The point is they are banning a practice for no apparent reason. The skin surrounding your dick head is a functional body part really? You're like the 15th person to try to make the procedure sound worse than it is.
Personally, I'd rather have a sensitive penis and not have to learn any of that shit and walk around with a baller cock that girls like to look at. So don't ban it, get it?
PS. circumcised dicks have skin as well, whatever function you think you have over a circumcised dick is probably a fallacy.
|
On November 30 2010 09:47 drewcifer wrote:
Personally, I'd rather have a sensitive penis and not have to learn any of that shit and walk around with a baller cock that girls like to look at. So don't ban it, get it?
i LoL'd
|
Eh, looks like my post may have come off the wrong way.
Obviously, the issues here are (1) government control over a person's body and (2) who has the legal/moral right to make that decision for a child that is incapable of making the decision themselves.
For reasons that should be obvious, I oppose government control over every little stupid thing. Should the government decide that boys must or must not be circumcised? Absolutely not.
With regards to the second issue...I'm not so sure. I would be pissed if I were. (Obviously I'm entitled to my opinion; I'm just saying I agree that it's ridiculous the government in SF is trying to ban it. I'm just saying I'm not sure if it's right for parents to make a permanent decision like that.)
|
I think the notion that it's the child's decision is just silly. No one is going to want to go through with that at age 17, even if they'd rather be circumcised. It should remain the parent's decision, because the kid won't really have much of a choice either way.
|
From what I hear it's a much more painful and risky process to have a circumcision when you're older rather than when you're younger.
|
Mutilating baby dick is a pretty strange desire.
In civilised countries we stopped mutilating babies, at least publicly anyway..
America.. its time to turn your hate to something other than baby genitalia.
|
Is this really an issue for argument? I can't help but wonder how many people here are genuinely upset that their penis was "mutilated" by their parents at brith as opposed to just exaggerating their feelings to reinforce a point. I haven't met a single person in real life that actually cared about this. It's not as if it's some sort of traumatic experience that you remember for the rest of your life and you simply get used to whatever type of body you have as you grow up. It's really much less of an issue than I think most of the people in this thread are making it out to be.
I think San Francisco really has better stuff to be worrying about than a relatively minor procedure that the vast majority of people really don't care about one way or the other.
|
Anyone else misread the title as "baneling circumcision"?
|
[B] Whilst I deem the ritual barbaric and unnecessary, (plus there are guys that need that extra bit of meat  j/k) I am adamantly opposed to giving the government more control in my private life.
I feel just the same way, but if there ever was a law needed in peoples private lives, child abuse would be a good place to start
|
On November 30 2010 11:39 gravethrasher wrote:Show nested quote +[B] Whilst I deem the ritual barbaric and unnecessary, (plus there are guys that need that extra bit of meat j/k) I am adamantly opposed to giving the government more control in my private life. I feel just the same way, but if there ever was a law needed in peoples private lives, child abuse would be a good place to start
Bingo.
|
On November 30 2010 11:44 Scrimpton wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:39 gravethrasher wrote:[B] Whilst I deem the ritual barbaric and unnecessary, (plus there are guys that need that extra bit of meat j/k) I am adamantly opposed to giving the government more control in my private life. I feel just the same way, but if there ever was a law needed in peoples private lives, child abuse would be a good place to start Bingo.
Bingo circumcision is child abuse people.
Guys, not to stomp on your parade or anything but...I'm living proof that circumcision is not child abuse or mutilation as you portray it to be. My parents decided my dick needed to be butchered as a child as you would put it, yet I never suffered a single day because of this decision and I am rather glad they went through with it.
It's kind of strange to come to this thread and repeatedly see people so out of the ordinary passionate over this. I mean honestly why are you guys constantly trying to portray this as an act of abuse? It just wreaks of someone who is trying to make reality seem like something it's not. When you're so plainly trying to distort the truth, your opinion's strength starts to dwindle(in my opinion)...so for the sake of your argument please stop referring to circumcision as anything but a medical procedure..you're only hurting your credibility. I don't disagree with what you said, just how you said it. We all agree that it is retarded for the government to intervene here, but the subtle amount of hate I am sensing from ant eaters is making me think this was the reason for the ban in the first place. I'm dying to know why you guys care so much about other people's dicks.
|
You guys think vaccines on young children are barbaric child abuse too? I mean, I could post videos of kids being vaccinated and crying like it's the end of the world yelling "plz don't kill me no waah waaah". It does look very cruel.
I still think you guys are way exaggerating over something silly.
|
On November 30 2010 09:31 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:57 Arkansassy wrote:If this has already been covered, I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes. But I do think a little history on the topic should be brought to light. It seems that the U.S. is the only industrialized country who practices circumcision routinely. I’ve read that in Europe, Jews and Muslims, for religious reasons, are circumcised, but few others. So why does the U.S. engage in this ritual? Firstly, note that the foreskin has an abundance of highly sensitive receptors. It also has a ridged band of muscles that protect the urinary tract from contaminants. Circumcision takes minutes to perform and within these minutes, veins, arteries, capillaries, nerves and nerve endings are destroyed; as are all the muscles, glands, epithelial tissue, and sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin. In ancient times (research shows that circumcision has been practiced since 3000 B.C.) the Egyptians performed it as a mark of slavery; Jews (at first just the tip of the foreskin was snipped) and Muslims as a religious rite. To the Romans and Greeks, it was so distasteful that it was outlawed. It wasn’t until the Victorian era that routine circumcision was practiced in the U.S. thanks to Dr. Lewis Sayre, who convinced society that circumcision would cure many of the ailments found in young boys, but what really hit home (now remember we’re in the Victorian era) was that it would END the desire for young boys to masturbate and hence cure insanity and retardation that comes from masturbation. Other doctors obviously agreed. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (creator of “and they’re grrrrrrrrrrrrreat) cornflakes "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," he wrote.”The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." Due to the “vile habit of masturbation” circumcision was recommended by many practicing physicians in the late 1800s. It wasn’t until the 70s that people began questioning the “need” for circumcision. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics revised their stance on circumcision. "The foreskin protects the glands throughout life." Emotional feelings about the penis might be due to long-standing myths – hygiene being one of them and another aesthetics. When asked about circumcision in an interview with Redbook in 1989, Dr. Benjamin Spock quite simply stated, "My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone." Whilst I deem the ritual barbaric and unnecessary, (plus there are guys that need that extra bit of meat j/k) I am adamantly opposed to giving the government more control in my private life. you're not stepping on anyone's toes by repeating what's been said, you're just being a shitty poster. If you do not want to bother reading through a thread, no one's going to give two fucks about your contribution to it.
I offered some history for anyone interested. If no one cares to read it, it's up to them. I just put it out there.
|
On November 30 2010 12:46 VIB wrote:
You guys think vaccines on young children are barbaric child abuse too? I mean, I could post videos of kids being vaccinated and crying like it's the end of the world yelling "plz don't kill me no waah waaah". It does look very cruel.
I still think you guys are way exaggerating over something silly.
So let me get this straight, you are equating having the foreskin of the penis chopped off and bleeding to be on the same level of pain as a vaccination? Better example please.
Edit: Furthermore, infant are very susceptible to many bacteria and viruses thus making vaccination a pretty important decision. I still don't see the importance of circumcision other than a traditional thing.
|
On November 30 2010 13:04 Yamoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:46 VIB wrote:
You guys think vaccines on young children are barbaric child abuse too? I mean, I could post videos of kids being vaccinated and crying like it's the end of the world yelling "plz don't kill me no waah waaah". It does look very cruel.
I still think you guys are way exaggerating over something silly. So let me get this straight, you are equating having the foreskin of the penis chopped off and bleeding to be on the same level of pain as a vaccination? Better example please. You're not making it look any less exaggeratedly silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
